This section attempts to breakdown occupational/industry support of the financing of San Francisco’s 2011 candidates. While the Occupation (and Employer) of a contributor does not always correlate with the decision to make a campaign contribution, we believe that an analysis of contributor occupation or industry can be a useful tool in examining trends of both the political interests of financial supporters of a particular candidate campaign as well as the appeal of candidates to select segments of society.

After consolidating the highly varied campaign reporting of individual contributor occupations, we totaled the amount of contributions each candidate received by Occupation/Industry group to create the charts on the three candidate-office-specific pages (see links below). The Occupation/Industry category “Other” includes (1) instances that were difficult to classify, (2) sundry “consultants,” and (3) cases where an identified profession group represented a very low percentage of the applicable candidate’s financial support.

I. District Attorney candidates – Contributor Occupations

Gascon – Bock – Onek.

Comparison of the three graphs below suggests that Onek had the most varied support of the DA candidates, with the largest percentage of “Other” category donors and a larger number of different identified profession/industry groups than the other candidates. Onek had the highest percentage of Lawyer support (21%), though Lawyers also contributed large amounts to the other candidates. Onek’s second highest source of contributions were Miscellaneous Business Executives/Owners (15%). Onek also had the least amount of support from Developers/Real Estate/Construction (3%, about ½ to ¼ of the percentage of the other candidates) and the largest amount of Education support (10% total after combining the three education categories listed in his graph), with Law Professors alone comprising 3% of his contributions from individuals. Interestingly, Onek is the only DA candidate to have recognizable support from employees of the San Francisco Police Department (1% of his contributions).

By contrast, candidate Gascón had the most support from Misc. Business Executives/Owners (34% of his contributions) and Developers/Real Estate/Construction (12% of his contributions), which together with Lawyers (18%) comprised the majority of his contributions. Gascón is also the only candidate to have discernable support from contributors employed by the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office (1%), which Gascón now runs and which all of three candidates are vying for.

Amongst the three candidates, Bock had the highest percentage of support from Retired donors (11%), Homemakers (11%), Finance/Investors (9%), and the Unemployed[i] (5%), though her biggest source of support was Misc. Business Executives/Owners (14%).

Gascon

Bock

Onek

[i] Any individual contributor who is unemployed and does not own a business may be reported with an Occupation of “none,” “n/a,” or “unemployed.” However, such contributors are often disclosed as “homemaker,” “retired,” or the like. Thus, contributors reported as “unemployed” could in fact be homemakers, retirees, students, or those who are actually out of work.

A variety of patterns can be seen from comparing the graphs below. Obviously, the Run Ed Run campaign’s graph sticks out. It raised the least amount of money, fundraised for the least amount of time, and ignored the $500 contribution limit applicable to other candidates, resulting in blocks of undiversified support from a few sources, primarily Miscellaneous Business Executives/Owners and Developers/Real Estate/Construction.

By contrast, the Avalos and Dufty graphs suggest they have the most diverse support, both having the largest “Other” category support (approximately 1/3 of their contributions each) and numerous Occupation/Industry groupings. Avalos also stands out for having the least percentage of support from Developers/Real Estate/Construction (3%), which is often a palpable source of contributions for the Mayor candidates, the most percentage of support from both Education (8%) and San Francisco City & County government workers (7%), and the only significant support from Community Organizers/Consumer Advocates (3%). Dufty also stands out for having the only discernable support from SF Bar/Club Owners/Workers (2% of his support) and employees of the San Francisco Police and Fire Departments (1% each).

Top percentages in other Occupation/Industry categories –

Developers/Real Estate/Construction: Run Ed Lee Run (25%), followed by Alioto-Pier (12%);

Misc. Business Executives/Officers: Run Ed Lee Run (57%), followed by Rees (24%);

Finance/Investors: Rees (14%);

Lawyers: Herrera (28%), followed by Chiu (18%);

Healthcare: Yee (10%, after including all three categories in his graph);

Herrera also received nearly 1 in 20 (total 4%) of his contributions from individuals employed by the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office, over which he presides.

Progress for All [Run Ed Lee Run]

Avalos

Hall

Ting

Alioto-Pier

Yee

Rees

Chiu

Dufty

Herrera

[i] Any individual contributor who is unemployed and does not own a business may be reported with an Occupation of “none,” “n/a,” or “unemployed.” However, such contributors are often disclosed as “homemaker,” “retired,” or the like. Thus, contributors reported as “unemployed” could in fact be homemakers, retirees, students, or those who are actually out of work.

III. Sheriff Candidates – Contributor Occupations

Miyamoto – Mirkarimi.

Comparison of the graphs below shows distinct differences between the sources of financial support for the candidates. Miyamoto received the majority of his support from employees of the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office (64%), compared to Mirkarimi receiving only 1% from that source. Such a large amount of support for a single source makes Miyamoto’s financing unusual compared to the funding patterns of all the other major candidates across all three races (only the Run Ed Lee Run campaign had similarly undiversified support – see Mayor candidates page). Miyamoto’s second largest source of support were Retirees (14%). By contrast, Mirkarimi’s support was far more varied, with a high amount in the “Other” category (29%) and a larger number of identified Occupation/Industry categories than was supporting Miyamoto. Mirkarimi’s largest consolidated sources of support were Miscellaneous Business Executives/Owners (25%), Lawyers (15%), and Developers/Real Estate/Construction (13%).